US did not have sufficient will to sufficiently kill in vietnam because the justification for the war was absent. Justification and support for the defense of Vietnam, for the 3rd major unsuccessful foreign intervention in a generation, was inexhaustible. America is the most powerful nation on the planet, and can defend itself. Iraq has not attacked the United States, and we have no need to retaliate or pre-emptively act militarily. 9-11 Hijackers: 15 Saudis, the rest Egyptian/U.A.E. and Lebanese. Al-Qaeda is a fundamentalist organization that is the mortal enemy of Saddam's Iraq. Al-Qaeda and Iraq have never succeeded in cooperations of the most tenuous kind, and CIA has admitted this. There is no substantive or logical link to Al-Qaeda, except through Washington: US govt manipulation of American fears plays perfectly into Al-Qaeda's hands. That is the ONLY connection credibly found. Since the Afghan adventure, where is the Taliban? Pakistan, with visions of nuclear close-at-hand warheads, and a politically weak US puppet dictator (Musharraf) for the taking. Where is Qaeda? Everywhere. No, in a democracy, when the government diverges from clear majority opinions on any major issue, it ceases to be a democracy. Yes there is a lot of lag, but the government in the USA is representative of American attitudes in my opinion. Sometimes issues are confused, as in the fear and panic after 9-11, and I am in such times glad we have political inertia. However, the US government is rapidly finding itself at odds with public opinion at home and abroad. All the way to the top, the US government is quite nervous about this. The US is not a perfect democracy, of course. Sometimes we hold the reins a bit too loosely, and sometimes we lose some touch with reality. But Americans are becoming slowly aware. This will not be a successful war or occupation by any measure, because both are unjustified, will bring other intractable crises, and will suffer rapid loss of public support. Who is really in denial here?
I forgot to mention that I don't fear Iraqi weapons, because it is so basic a question as to be childish. I didn't even fear them when I was in the Gulf. Marquis, you can't be serious when you say Saddam is a credible threat to the United States. I'm sorry, but that line of propaganda is completely bankrupt. Marquis:"America these days has forgotten how to win a war, it seems. " - I do not agree, but: OK. If so: Why do you support this war?
ill be at a fundraiser. protesting doesn't change anything in terms of war. it just pisses people off. it doesn't matter. everyone i know is already on a plane.... my dad, my uncle, my best friend....
More and more it appears that Washington and our leaders are arranging another Vietman. One that no one but the political leaders want. To go after Al-Qaeda, the primary mission that was stated for a war on terrorism, seems to have been left in the dust, while Shub goes to tidy up the mess that his father left. If this has the backing of the UN ok. If it does not, then we have no business being there. It seems funny that Iraq is the single target when you have North Korea so busy flaunting their intent to do the same thing that Iraq is being accused of. North Korea is far more likely to present a problem in this aspect than is Iraq. It bothers me that we are not addressing the problems that make it, in the minds of the terrorists, ok to call for a jilad against western countries (not just the US). How strange it is that they would look back over the centuries and think that they want to be the center of culture once again but have such backward views. Once again, religion rears its ugly head as the reason to be all and do all. There are not many, I think, that would willingly take up the Taliban way, in the strict fundamental regilous sense. At least not the western counties. It seems like we deal with something out of our past history. World history at that. Makes one think that maybe the times of the Roman empire is not far off when swords and spears are the weapon of the day. There is something inheritantly wrong with both sides of this conflict. One side wishes everyone to bow down to their way of life of face the nameless aspect of terror because they do not see eye to eye with what the new regime would be. The other seems to run helter skelter about stomping on match stems while missing the fire.
Originally posted by hypewaders Marquis, you can't be serious when you say Saddam is a credible threat to the United States. I'm sorry, but that line of propaganda is completely bankrupt. No. What I said was : That is the basis from which I have been writing. I have a feeling that they do in fact have something nasty up their sleeves, but I do not know it for certain. You don't know that they don't, either. OK. If so: Why do you support this war? I have never said that I do, Hypewader. I'm surprised that you didn't see little hints of that in my previous posts. My contention is, that if the US gets involved in a war here, then they stand a very real chance of losing if they allow their political masters to dictate how it is fought. If they are overly concerned about civilian casualties, they will likely lose. If they allow themselves to be drawn into urban combat, they will likely lose. At best, you will see a long period of drawn-out fighting because it won't be fought as the US army is capable of doing. My worry is that the political ramifications of them losing in Iraq might be severe, and long term. The concept of a "limited war" (by which I do not mean using nukes or whatever, before you accuse me of it) isn't a sound one, and yet it seems that is how the peaceniks are going to force this war to be waged. The US has made this mistake pretty much constantly since the end of WW2 and haven't had any convincing victories since. If you don't have the will to thoroughly destroy your enemy, then you have no business fighting in the first place.
Marquis, not caring, or lamenting that we are not ruthless enough in unpolular wars like Vietnam is tacitly supporting this coming unpopular, ill-conceived, and disastrous war. As you said, "The majority of people are cattle being led around by the nose, believing whatever they're told by the faction they consider to be more in line with their own opinions than any other." (ungh) I'm trying to (mmmfff) jostle this (ow! my hoof!) whole herd away from the entrance to the (moooooove!) slaughterhouse, Marquis! Don't be such a stupid cow! The majority of us don't want to be hamburger! MY FELLOW COWS, W'ERE GONNA BE HAMBURGER IF WE LET THAT COWBOY SCARE US INTO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE! (head cowboy yelling "Terrorists!!" "Weapons of Mass Distruction" "Evil" "Hyah cows! It's safe inside my safehouse! Hyah!). The Bushevik war will be a senseless meat grinder. It will leave the Middle East, the US economy, and US security in a shambles. Don't be such a stupid cow.
A senseless war is coming because not enough freethinking people are protesting wherever they go, with whomever they talk, and by contacting their representatives. If you are not resisting the coming regional Middle East War, what is your excuse? If you are tempted to say "I don't know enough"- If I may suggest, you could begin here with a short history lesson. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.htm This review of US involvement avoids the subject of unconditional US support for Israel. This very explosive issue is directly related to any other US efforts in the region. If you don't know what "Nakba" and "Intifada" mean, then you could start here: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html
Originally posted by hypewaders Marquis, not caring, or lamenting that we are not ruthless enough in unpolular wars like Vietnam is tacitly supporting this coming unpopular, ill-conceived, and disastrous war. No, it's not. There's lots of wars, this one just happens to have the Americans as the starring attraction and a lot of people don't like the political America. They have neither my support nor my protest. If you're going to assume that if I'm not with you, then I'm against you, you're just being silly. "unpopular" hasn't yet been proven one way or the other. "ill-concieved" might be appropriate, but we'll see when the dust settles. "Disastrous" remains to be seen also. I've said that I believe it'll be disastrous if you lose, yes. Lamenting that you're not ruthless enough is saying that if you're going to be in a war, do it properly, or face a simlar situation again in ten years or so. It is not saying "USA! USA!" Kick the shit out of the damn towelheads!" That "if" in there is very, very important. Pay extra special attention to it. Have a look at the last bunch of American "politically correct" wars, and you'll see what I mean. You've been losing quite a few of them, it seems. Except maybe in the Gulf, and then y'all went home before finishing the job. Sloppy workmanship - Now we're back for round two... see? As you said, "The majority of people are cattle being led around by the nose, believing whatever they're told by the faction they consider to be more in line with their own opinions than any other." (ungh) I'm trying to (mmmfff) jostle this (ow! my hoof!) whole herd away from the entrance to the (moooooove!) slaughterhouse, Marquis! Don't be such a stupid cow! The herd? I try not to pay too much attention to them. The Bushevik war will be a senseless meat grinder. It will leave the Middle East, the US economy, and US security in a shambles. Don't be such a stupid cow. I have a feeling that a war is designed to leave the enemy's economy in a mess. Then you can come in later and pick it up for them, and incidentally open a few McDonald's outlets while you're at it. You never know, they might actually become happy over there in a generation or two, if you dig that sort of thing (And personally I believe that if that ever happens most of them will dig it just fine - most people I think hate America because they don't live there, and they think that's terribly unfair.) Wes's idea about playstations isn't bad either... you could designed lots of first person shooters for Arab consumption, with the Israelis as the bad guys, and you might even find they're too busy playing them to shoot real people any more. As for the US economy, I've heard it's already in a mess, or at least not entirely healthy. Wars are historically quite good for economies, from what I've heard (Unless overly protracted, or you lose it.). It'll be in even better shape if you can get a few of those McDonald's outlets I mentioned open, maybe snaffle an oil well or two while you're at it.
Marquis, I think where we disagree most is not in the nature of war, but in the facts on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region. The US can fight any type war it wants in Iraq: Half-hearted, all the way up the scale to Total War. Without the necessary political savvy, vision, and credibility, the US can not achieve anything constructive through the coming war.
Originally posted by hypewaders Marquis, I think where we disagree most is not in the nature of war, but in the facts on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region. I'd say you're pretty much right about that. You see "facts" about the situation, whereas all I see is that there are no "facts", just a big bloody mess of lies and decepetion on both sides. I'm not really all that disposed to trying to untangle it, which is one good reason for me never becoming a politician. I do, however, trust an "American world" more than I do a middle eastern one. I'm biased, but I like not being shot for disagreeing with dictators, and saying whatever the hell I like in places like this - not to mention playstations. The US can fight any type war it wants in Iraq: Half-hearted, all the way up the scale to Total War. Without the necessary political savvy, vision, and credibility, the US can not achieve anything constructive through the coming war. Unles they do it properly and rebuild Iraq afterwards, with a healthy dose of freedom and democracy. You never know, it might even work.
Well, we boiled it all down nicely. You place overriding trust in American motives and political skill in this coming adventure. I do not.
It’s obviously about oil. I can’t prove that to you. But it only requires intuition and historical perspective. There’ve been a lot of threads here that have hashed through that; I won’t rehash that here. I do think the Iraqis will be slightly better off, but only slightly. We’ll install another piece of shit to keep the Iraqis in line and working for us. We’ll spend $50 billion bombing them, and less than a billion rebuilding bridges to the oil fields. You’ll be able to tell when the oil companies’ profits shoot up, and Bush lands on the Forbes 400 list. Don’t expect gas prices to fall below 2001 levels, though. This isn’t about cheaper gas for the consumer. Was it unjust to the French when the Allies landed in Normandy? A war to liberate people from a dictator is not only just, but you can expect the people to celebrate your arrival. He’ll be the finish too, unless North Korea discovers a mother lode of something we want. That was thousands of kids chucked into the jungle against their will by the leader of our country, even as the leader of our country knew it was unnecessary (as Nixon, for example, later admitted). So there was no defense. The “defense” was a sham. GWI was for the purpose of stealing the oil. It didn’t take (there was no coup). Now we’re back to finish the job. I agree he should have been gone a long time ago. This is not going to be another Vietnam, for the reason that we don’t need Baghdad or Hussein. To meet the goal we need only the wellheads secured and the logo changed to Exxobile-BP.
Zanket, I think you could be completely correct right up to the beginning of the occupation, and transitional government of Iraq. From there, on into the resulting uncertainties regarding the stability of Nearly every surrounding country, I don't see good chances for a success. Why do you think the Saudis announced (they're lying) that they will show all american troops to the border as soon as Saddam is gone? The Saudis and others are very apprehensive. The forces for change in the middle east that are flooding into every power vacuum are not "friendlies" to American interests. I think using the term "Vietnam" to describe the only way this could turn sticky and smelly is unimaginative, and ignores the crucial political realities of the mideast.
MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!! MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!! MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!! MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!! MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!! MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!! MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!! MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!! MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!! MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!! MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!
It does best address the reality of how the American public may feel of this event in the coming days...
Wet1, I do anticipate a large difference from the Vietnam experience. The attempt to hold together Iraq (and the other disintegrating regimes in the region) will be more like what the British experienced in Northern Ireland at the height of The Troubles, one hundredfold. The real nightmare for American forces will begin when Saddam is dead. So back to the thread: Realizing these and other ominous things, If you are not a propaganda parrot like 12planets (I should have provided you your own answer in the polls, 12p-sorry) well then What is YOUR excuse???
I think there is no excuse to not stand up against the absurdity of this all. Maybe it is so that the American public will feel like with the Vietnam war in the days to come. Is that a bad thing then? Was it not so that the American public in majority was against Vietnam, once they saw the monstrosities? Maybe, with all my hopes up, they will realise now, in time (hmmmm...), that they will have to try to stop this, before it becomes an even bigger catastrophe than Vietnam.
btw regardless of our disagreement, your avatar is badass. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I understand your assertion, but you're presuming. I can't say you're wrong, but I think you are... regardless, it's impossible to say. You're expressing an opinion. I can't even comprehend how you think it's about oil honestly. How is that? Eh, I won't make you go into it I'll hunt the other threads... but I really can't see how the US benefits in terms of oil besides not having someone who hates the US in control of oil prices or whatever in the region. Same and only benefit from the first one, besides booting his ass out of Kuwait. I don't understand. It's not like the US owns the oil fields. Sure, maybe we get good deals from the country whom we saved, but uh... shouldn't we for saving them? Further, I'd have to see some graphs to believe you about the prices in 91 and how they changed over time. Eh, I just think you're paranoid, but maybe I'm just ignorant. You don't think that would be a huge benefit to the Iraqi people? I think you're WAY off. The press has done a pretty good job of convincing me that it's gistapo germany over there. I realize that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I buy it to an extent. Something like that I guess. Sure. That doesn't mean those who survive won't be significantly better off. He's not already there? Money? He needs money? I really doubt it. He obviously digs power, but fuck, he's the leader of the free world. I believe he's attained his power goals I'd think. I seriously don't think the guy is greedy enough to go and kill a shitload of civilians to pad his wallet. He can do that with the stroke of a pen, he's a christian (not that I think that is good) so he doesn't want to go to hell. Don't you think it's kind of mean of you to talk about anyone like that? He's a relatively cool guy for a somewhat retarded rich boy. Didn't you see that thing on HBO where they followed him on the campain trail? He's kind of dopey and horny, but he really seems like a decent human. I hated him really, shit I voted for Gore on the basis that Bush was an idiot and part of some sort of twisted american royalty. Ack. Well, now I'm glad it's him instead of that scary dude Gore. Man, he's creepier than Bush by far, and seems like a serious asshole to boot. Okay... moving on. I never thought it was. You think it's about more cash for oil compainies and Bush? *shrug* It could be. I guess it's a matter of if I choose to be paranoid or just skeptical, and I've not seen any real evidence to say he's in it for the money... oh, besides accusations which mean nothing to me because I've not seen substatiating evidence... (but I haven't gone far out of my way to find it either... have you? do you have actual evidence or accusations? I'm not being an ass, I'm really curious... have you questioned the motivations of your sources of information as much as you've questioned Bush's motivations? To me it doesn't seem like you've really questioned them at all, but assume inherently that he's a fuckwad and will kill your child for a dollar and get away with it because he's president. I think you're mean for thinking that. To the Nazis, I'm quite sure... yes. It's only just if you aren't the dictator or someone loyal to his cause. Doubt it, China will handle NK because they really really don't like the idea of having Nukes in South Korea eh? It would be sad to have to ensure balance in the region in such a manner. I don't know anything about that. If that was the case, the fucker should have been jailed for a long time on the spot. Fuck his sick child killing ass. That's simply wrong. Stealing WHAT oil? That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. We gave it back to Kuwait after saving their asses in a thousand ways. How did we steal it? Convince me we stole it. This won't be that because we will dominate him militarily. It'll be a lot like the prior show I'm sure, maybe deadlier.. but we'll kick his ass hard and fast. If you say so.
